Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should we unban nonbasics from 2-3-7 Extended?


Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Casual or Other Decks

What kinds of lands should be allowed?
Basic Lands Only! (The default)
57%
 57%  [ 15 ]
Nonbasics and Basics of COURSE!
42%
 42%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 26

Author Message
blitzer2k7



Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 412

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well since you have said that 2-3-7 isnt just an extended format, try running trials that arent extended. You say you have them banned for other formats but all Ive ever seen is 2-3-7 extended. So why is that? In my honest opinion, why not make a banned list for each 2-3-7 format individually using the normal banning lists and go from there?
Back to top
Mr_DoomZ



Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the Idea of nonbasics in the extended format.
Back to top
Burton911



Joined: 09 Jun 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about unbanning some special kind of nonbasic lands?

If you just unban the Shocklands and the Painlands it would make two or even three color Strategies possible but not broken.
Fetchlands and Shocklands are unhealthy for a Funformat but it would be possible too.

But i have to say that I never played the format, so its just an idea.
Back to top
Kaesh



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nonbasics would make Faeries retarded good, so my vote is for no.
However, I am going to hijack the thread and suggest making the default format Legacy instead of Extended (still no nonbasics). What do you think? It's a fun format, the more cards the funnier a format is Very Happy
Back to top
Avata



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 407

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO, saying "it makes more decks possible" isn't necessarily a valid reason for changing a ban list in such a significant way, unless the format is stagnant.

In a fun format like 2-3-7, or tribal, or peasant, the whole point is to restrict what can be played. In 2-3-7 in particular, "you have to be selective with your mana base" is just one of the building restrictions of the format. If you want to unban cards simply to add deck diversity, why don't we just unban 1 and 4 casting cost cards too, and play it vintage? That would add loads of diversity.

I don't play a ton of 2-3-7, but another argument I can see for it is that it's a fun format. Fun formats are fun for fewer people if everyone is running a $200 mana base. I know it's an online format, but as previously stated by some, people do apparently play this on paper sometimes.
Back to top
Super_Prep



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I aggree with the unban of non-basic lands lets kill dem lands!

If they banned non-basic lands from this format, surely they'll ban them from other formats, and maybe even stop printing these awsome lands, that allow powerful decks an existance. But, instead you retards want basic land decks that can't do shit, cept play easy boy cards. Talk about someone who made this topic cause they love elves or some other shity aggro deck.
Back to top
Ashmatan



Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 116

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't believe there is actually an argument about unbanning non-basics. Gentlemen, those are the rules to the format. It's not like anyone is making them up. So, get with the program or stay away from the format. Do you see anyone changing the rules to Monopoly to suit their own needs? Or any other game that has the rules already set? Seriously, get over it and move on.
Back to top
Qamiqaze420



Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i like the basics only rule. makes it feel like og magic from when i was a lil kid in the card shop before ptqs and the dojo ruined my innocence.

and as is, the metagame is varied enough. the format is fine.
Back to top
six
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mind_Game wrote:
I aggree with the unban of non-basic lands lets kill dem lands!

If they banned non-basic lands from this format, surely they'll ban them from other formats, and maybe even stop printing these awsome lands, that allow powerful decks an existance. But, instead you retards want basic land decks that can't do shit, cept play easy boy cards. Talk about someone who made this topic cause they love elves or some other shity aggro deck.


I hope this post was a joke, since there is absolutely nothing true in it.


Quote:
Well since you have said that 2-3-7 isnt just an extended format, try running trials that arent extended. You say you have them banned for other formats but all Ive ever seen is 2-3-7 extended. So why is that? In my honest opinion, why not make a banned list for each 2-3-7 format individually using the normal banning lists and go from there?


The reason it is extended only is because it's hard enough getting Legacy minis to fill, adding a restriction of 2-3-7 only makes it harder. Lots of people feel frustrated with the sheer quantity of cards available in Legacy and that's why they don't even want to try it. The same thing happens with extended (I've been there) and it's just worse for Legacy.

Quote:
Seriously, give the format a try with non-basics. People who think it will somehow make the format worse are out of their minds. Making non-basics legal will open the format up so much, and allow for much more interesting decks to be competitive rather than lame crap like MUC, etc.


I don't think the format will be worse or better for it necessarily, I just don't really see a need to supersede the rules. Right now, I see deck diversity regardless of land and I don't see a lot of monocolor dominance of minis. Most of the format is dominated by 2 color decks, which I like and support. It's nice to be reminded of what Magic is like without perfect multicolor manabases and powerful manlands.
Back to top
blitzer2k7



Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 412

PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

six wrote:

Quote:
Well since you have said that 2-3-7 isnt just an extended format, try running trials that arent extended. You say you have them banned for other formats but all Ive ever seen is 2-3-7 extended. So why is that? In my honest opinion, why not make a banned list for each 2-3-7 format individually using the normal banning lists and go from there?


The reason it is extended only is because it's hard enough getting Legacy minis to fill, adding a restriction of 2-3-7 only makes it harder. Lots of people feel frustrated with the sheer quantity of cards available in Legacy and that's why they don't even want to try it. The same thing happens with extended (I've been there) and it's just worse for Legacy.
And what about Standard? You said this format was for all formats, standard, extended, and legacy. I can understand legacy being hard to fill and that is completely plausible. But extended and Standard almost never have any difficulty in filling, and at times they fill too fast for people who want to play. So again, I dont see why you dont just create a specific ban list for each format for 2-3-7.

As for the person that said it would make faeries too good, need I remind you the best removal in the game is still legal (Volcanic Fallout, Infest, etc.) and I dont see that being a problem.

As for the argument about perfect manabases, why not make a compromise? Instead of only basics, why not allow the panaramas? Theyre still commons and they only allow for fetching basic lands. What is wrong with that? And what about some of the other common lands that arent basic? How are those going to hurt most decks? Sure they will help, but not so much so that it will make them the best. And the examples that I am referring to are Terramorphic Expanse, Rupture Spire, Shimmering Grotto, the Rav double lands, the onslaught cycling lands, and cloudpost from Mirrodin. Now obviously some could make a case for the onslaught lands making slide too powerful and someone abusing cloudpost for a stupid nuts affinity deck. Metabreaking, I dont think so.
Back to top
six
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

8post sounds pretty nuts in this format tbh.
Back to top
Wiley



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's my first post in almost 2 years

I think a reasonable compromise can be made where maybe you just ban rare nonbasic lands? So that prevents fetchlands, painlands and shocklands from making the format retarded but you can still use urza lands or the 3 color lands from Ala.

Just a suggestion.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Casual or Other Decks All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy